With regard to Rep. Mike Rogers’ upcoming radio career
(look for it to be short-lived), one thing is increasingly certain; he
will need one of the best call-screeners in the business. While he’s at
it, he may want to have a five minute delay installed and a hired hand
with a finger on the “dump” button at all times. Rogers, the outgoing
head of the House Intelligence Committee, is entering the talk radio
business at a time when the Select Committee on Benghazi could be
dominating the news (especially in talk radio) and his wife should be
introduced as a topic of discussion.
Rogers: Going into Talk Radio with little to say about Benghazi.
The same legal watchdog group that exposed the ‘Smoking gun’ Benghazi email – which was compounded by our discovery at Shoebat.com, that one of the names on the distribution list is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood – has zeroed in on another conflict of interest with Rogers.
This time, it involves his wife, Kristi, who quietly resigned from her position at Manatt, Phelps and Phelps law firm just two weeks prior to her husband’s announcement that he would be resigning from Congress after this year. Kristi’s time at Manatt law firm was barely more than a year:
“Her departure was not announced and her association with the firm has been scrubbed from its website.”
In 2011, Ms. Rogers was named vice chairman of the
company’s board of directors. In December 2012, she left Aegis and
joined the law firm Manatt as a managing director for federal government
affairs.
As it relates to the Benghazi timeline, her departure was roughly
three months after four Americans were murdered in the Libyan city on
9/11/12.
Question: Did Aegis have any business in Libya?
Answer: Oh, yeah.
Mike and Kristi Rogers in October, 2012.
In fact, when it comes to Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, there is an
interesting confluence of events relative to their ladder-climbing in
Congress and at Aegis respectively, as well as when relevant events
unfolded in Libya. Libya was a focus of the Obama administration in
2011. In particular, Obama sought the removal of Muammar Gadhafi, which
ultimately happened in October of that year.
The Arab Spring protests began in January and took root in Libya by
February. Mike Rogers had just become House Intelligence Committee
chairman and his wife had already been with Aegis since 2006. However,
in 2011, Kristi’s rise with that company coincided with its very
increased presence in Libya:
Libya also was an area of activity for Aegis, Ms. Rogers’
company. As Rep. Rogers assumed control of the Intelligence Committee,
an Aegis subsidiary, Aegis Advisory, began setting up shop in Libya. “Aegis
has been operating in Libya since February 2011,” noted an Aegis
Advisory intelligence report aimed at corporate clients. The report,
marked “Confidential,” notes the company’s ability to
provide “proprietary information [and] expert knowledge from our country
team based in Tripoli.” Security was part of the Aegis package, too.
Who was Aegis doing work for while in Libya in 2011? According to a statement, it was not the U.S. Government (unless it was covert / non-contract work):
“(No) member of the Aegis Group has ever entered into a contract with any department of the U.S. government to perform work in Libya.”
For those paying attention, when an entity in the “covert” operations
business says it never “entered into a contract”, that would qualify as
a statement made inside a wiggle room.
According to its website, Aegis Advisory does work…
…for a range of major clients, which include
multinational corporations, investment banks, law firms, private equity
houses and government organisations. The intelligence Aegis provides
informs our clients’ strategic business decisions, mitigating risk and
providing opportunity.
What is not known is who Aegis would have been doing work for in
Libya at a time when the spouse of the company’s vice chairman of its
board of directors also happened to be the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee. Aegis’ area of expertise is… intelligence. Based
on Aegis’ statement, its presence in Libya was in no way connected to
“any department of the U.S. government” (at least not with a
“contract”).
That leads to the notion of covert operations in Libya. Publicly, Mr. Rogers was against them as of March of 2011, saying:
“Any covert action that happens would have to get the sign off of the intelligence chairmen, by statute. You won’t get a sign off from me,”
Rogers said referring to National Security Act 47. “I still think
arming the rebels is a horrible idea. We don’t know who they are, we
only know who they are against but we don’t really who they are for. We
don’t have a good picture of who’s really in charge.”
Indications are that Mr. Rogers didn’t feel the same way when it came to shipping weapons out of Benghazi. According to a very credible report,
then CIA Director David Petraeus ran a covert operation out of Benghazi
in early 2012. The purpose was to ship weapons to Turkey from the CIA
Annex. From there, the weapons were then shipped to Syria.
If Mr. and Mrs. Rogers were in the movies.
The degree to which either Mr. or Mrs. Rogers knew about this
operation at the time is not known but what is known is that the House
Intelligence Chairman was one of eight members of Congress
who allegedly received a classified annex to last January’s Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report. That annex laid out the
details of this covert operation.
At a minimum, Mr. Rogers knew about this operation this past January.
However, the notion that is the first time he learned of it simply
strains credulity for one simple reason. House Speaker John Boehner –
also one of the eight – demonstrated his own knowledge of the operation one year earlier, on January 24, 2013, during an interview with Laura Ingraham. Had Boehner not
communicated with Rogers about what he knew regarding the operation, he
would have been in violation of the law. Again, consider what Mr.
Rogers said in March of 2011 about arming Libyan rebels:
“Any covert action that happens would have to get the sign off of the intelligence chairmen, by statute.“
We can therefore conclude that either Boehner was an accessory to
obstruction of justice by not informing Rogers of the covert operation
or that Rogers knew about it prior to Boehner’s interview with Ingraham
last year. Frankly, the latter is far more likely. From there, it should
be determined to what extent did Mr. Rogers communicate with Mrs.
Rogers? We’re not talking about “True Lies” in which one spouse was in
the business and one wasn’t. Both Mike and Kristi were very familiar
with the intelligence business.
Here is the clip of Boehner with Ingraham on January 24, 2013:
Some might remember that a NATO presence in Libya at the orders of
Barack Obama became controversial because it didn’t involve Congress. At
issue was the 1973 War Powers Act, which required Obama to get
Congressional authorization for hostilities involving U.S. forces after
60 days.
In June of 2011, Mr. Rogers was one of only eight Republicans who voted to authorize military action
to remove Gadhafi in Libya. This was clearly an attempt to get the War
Powers Act debate off the table. In essence, it sought to eliminate the
issue of Congressional inaction in response to egregious Presidential action. An authorization to use force would have made everything legit.
In August of 2011 – as Gadhafi was about to fall – Mr. Rogers
appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. In a moment of candor, Rogers argued
that the U.S. must “aggressively” secure very dangerous weapons from the
Libyan rebels.
This is clearly what the CIA Annex in Benghazi was all about and even
further bolsters the case that said weapons were then shipped on to
Syria via Turkey. Take note at the 2:30 mark, when Rogers says that a
“surge of diplomatic efforts” would be necessary to secure the weapons:
Securing the weapons = CIA Annex.
Diplomatic efforts = Christopher Stevens.
In an interview with Megyn Kelly last year, Rogers reluctantly confirmed
that Stevens met with his committee in the days before the Benghazi
attacks. Here is an audio clip of that portion of the exchange.
As Shoebat.com has chronicled, when it comes to Rogers and Benghazi, the red flags are in abundance. One of them is another conflict of interest
that involved his committee’s lead investigator taking a job with
several Hillary Clinton allies and former Deputy CIA Director Mike
Morell.
Computers will use more electricity than the entire world can generate by 2040, tech experts claim
Nightmare scenario means humanity will be simply unable to power the systems which keep us alive
by Jasper Hamill
25th July 2016, 12:43 pm
Modern humans depend on their computers to do everything from ordering food to finding a romantic partner.
But the current digital big bang could end with a disappointing
whimper because humanity may be unable to produce enough power to keep computers running, experts have warned.
A leading technical organised called the Semiconductor Industry Association has produced a study which said that computer-crazy society will be running short of electricity by 2040.
Will the world end up running out of power?
It wrote: “Computing will not be sustainable by 2040, when the energy
required for computing will exceed the estimated world’s energy
production.”
The Semiconductor Industry Association meets every year to discuss
how electronic components called transistors – which power computer
circuits – can be made ever smaller.
Now the organisation is conceding that they probably won’t get any
tinier, heralding the end of an era where computers got faster and
faster as transistors shrunk to every tinier sizes.
This means tech firms will have to think of new ways to make computers powerful enough to keep up with demands.
“Driverless cars and personalised medicine along with countless other
applications of intelligent systems are on the horizon, the
Semiconductor Industry Association added.
The year 2040 carries a huge resonance in the tech world, because
some people believe that’s when artificial intelligence will become as
clever as us humans – a moment known as the singularity.
The
reality is that in the 2016 election it now takes more than a majority
for a Republican to win. Romney, for example, won about two thirds of
all precincts nationwide and probably got in the range of 55% of the
verifiable vote, but lost the election to nearly unanimous Obama support
from nearly 100% turnout of potentially eligible voters in inner city precincts in key states like Ohio,
where the certainty of being accused of racism for even thinking you
couldn't get that level of turnout for a week of free pizza and beer
prevented any form of verification.
Electoral cheating has probably existed since the second election ever held, but cheating by American Democrats has now reached levels never seen before in a major democracy.
Basically what seems to have happened to electoral integrity is akin to
the fate of the legendary frog in water slowly brought to a boil with
conservatives only marginally aware that a a lot of small battles are being lost and the Democrats relentlessly pursuing four closely linked, long term, and deeply dishonorable, national policies:
Democrats
hide the extent of fraud by combining a line of patter denying the
existence of voter fraud while accusing Republicans of it with media
blitzes publicizing and denigrating isolated, and often not very credible, claims like those that some voting machine somewhere mis-recorded a few conservative votes as liberal.
This
is stagecraft 101 for magicians and propagandists alike: focusing
audience attention on the insignificance of the occasional process
failure in elections where millions of votes are counted while
simultaneously raising emotional and credibility barriers against those
who might otherwise get people to look a bit more carefully at what
other members of the Democrat team are doing.
The Secretary of State Project,
(apparently originally funded by George Soros) which seeks to put
Democrats in charge of both the voting, and the vote counting, processes
has now succeeded to the point that a majority of American voters are
affected.
Key strategies implemented by these apparatchiks include:
Fighting
the use of voter id and/or voter list verification though any means
possible including slow walking legislated implementations, lawfare,
inviting federal intrusion into state matters, and directing state and
local authority funds aimed at remediation toward the acquisition and
use of dysfunctional technologies with long histories of delay,
uncontrolled cost escalation, and eventual failure;
Developing
and perpetuating utterly ineffective processes for delivering or
counting military ballots (which tend to favor Republicans);
Refusing
to reform equally incompetent and ineffective processes for preventing
felons, illegals, or the dead (all of whom tend to vote Democrat) from
swaying elections; and,
Extending the duration of, while weakening eligibility and verification criteria for, all forms of advance voting.
Using
litigation, and the threat of litigation, to sway electoral process
decisions in favor of Democrats and against Republicans.
Democrats
see lawfare, and more importantly the threat of lawfare, as a perfectly
legitimate way to win elections. Thus their tendency to publically
stress their commitment to having lawyers present during the counting
and related processes for close elections, coupled with their actual
commitment to challenging all close losses by filing lawsuits naming
everyone involved anywhere in the process, forces electoral officials
facing difficult decisions to choose between the mild criticism they can
expect from Republicans if they decide for the Democrat and the near
certainty of a starring role in Democrat lawsuits to be heard by
Democrat judges amid unrelenting, unprincipled, and deeply personal
media attacks if they decide against the Democrat.
Encouraging the proliferation of system disconnects in advance vote and vote counting processes. In particular abuse of the Help America Vote Act (2002) has enabled Democrats to insert significant new opportunities for voting fraud into the system.
For
example, the use of Wintel (Windows on Intel) architecture voting
machines usually justifies the use of precinct level "servers" to
collect local data that is then passed to other servers "up" the
counting hierarchy. Since each level uses programmable machines that can
be subverted, each such disconnect offers multiple opportunities for
fraud.
For
example, servers at or above the precinct level can safely add entirely
fictitious votes to the count provided that total turnout does not
become so absurd as to attract attention, the fraudster has the list of
advance voters, and either the list of people who voted at the precinct
is electronic or the fraudster has the access needed to either replace
or modify the precinct's paper records. In this situation the modified
data from the server passes into the totals unnoticed during the rush to
the count, while the immediate post election lassitude affecting those
involved in high pressure, late night, activities provides the time and
opportunities needed to adjust precinct records to cover the lie. This
is fairly easy to do and relatively low risk because a Democrat win on
the first count means that no one of consequence will question the
result while cursory reviews will show that the number of votes counted
for each affected precinct is within one or two of the number of voters
-- and, of course, Democrat judges can be counted on to admit missing
ballots produced at leisure and "found" in somebody's car or a church basement in the rare event that the Republican hangs in long enough to force a physical count.
The
bottom line on this is simple: the analogical frog needs to jump, and
right now, if the 2016 and subsequent American elections are to be won
by 50% + 1, and not by combining 40 something percent with fraud and a
compliant judiciary.
It's
too late to radically change the voting or vote management processes
for 2016, but legislators now in office can move immediately to remove
or limit the use of lawfare to affect electoral process decisions. In
particular, it shouldn't take a Bader Ginsburg outburst to show that the
much of the judiciary has become deeply politicized, is correspondingly
unfit to render impartial judgement on deeply political issues, and
should therefore not be called on to settle electoral disputes --
meaning that other means of settlement, such as legislative committees
or investigative juries made up entirely of retired police officers,
must be found and empowered.
Since
the publication of my book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The
Conspiracy, three weeks ago I have been receiving insights from people
with new information on a daily basis. Those who wish to contact me can
do though my website cashill.com. What follows, however, is a review
from Amazon. It explains why TWA 800 displaced other planes in line,
including an El Al flight, and why, fatally, it was flying so low.
Cashill
has done an excellent job making an overwhelming circumstantial case
that TWA 800 was brought down by missile. I know quite a bit about this
topic as I was personally about as close as you can get to this tragic
event.
On 07/17/96, exactly 20 years ago today I was working as First Officer
on TWA 900 which was operating JFK to Lisbon. We left the gate on time
and got into a 15 or so plane takeoff line for runway 22R. As we got to
the number 2 position for takeoff we were told to hold and allow TWA 800
to take our place in the takeoff line. 800 was operating as a
"Lifeguard" flight that night meaning they were carrying time critical
medical material. (Organs for transplant, etc) This "Lifeguard" status
gave a flight priority handling by ATC. (It was common to place that
cargo, usually a small cooler, in the cockpit for expeditious handling
at destination. I later learned that 800 was carrying corneas for
transplant but do not know how they were handled) TWA 800 took off and 2
minutes later we followed them southwest then east towards Nantucket.
We were able to get clearance to 19000' while 800 was stuck at 13000'
due to other aircraft traffic. They finally got clearance to climb and
shortly after that other aircraft began to report an explosion in the
air, falling debris and fire on the water, etc. I immediately thought of
800 (bomb in a cooler!?) and look to find them but did not see
anything. I later saw the radar plot and I looked in the right relative
location but had already passed over the scene.
I mention all of this because I am familiar with or knew the TWA pilots
mentioned in the book. They are all of superb character and were
dedicated aviation professionals and as far from reactionary in
temperament as you can get.One of them I talked extensively with one of
these gentlemen about all of what had taken place on the hangar floor at
Calverton as TWA 800's shattered pieces were bought in. Cashill's
narrative is exactly how it was told to me ca. 1999 or so.
While I disagree with the conclusion Cashill draws that the US Navy was
the culprit I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know the
vast degree to which this investigation was manipulated from the
earliest stages - but not immediately. When we arrived in Lisbon the
morning of the 18th the Captain I was flying with got a call in his
hotel room as soon as we arrived (9am local) from the FBI station chief
in Madrid. He asked "What did you guys see?" They already knew what to
look for.
Emails Posted By Wikileaks Reveal Democratic National Committee Actively Worked Against Bernie Sanders
Emails posted online by Wikileaks
reveal a hidden media war between the Democratic National Committee and
the Bernie Sanders campaign. The refusal of party officials to address
criticism with maturity serves to demonstrate the realities of the
“rigged” electoral system.
In
the early morning hours of May 21st, 2016, DNC Press Secretary Mark
Paustenbach wrote to Communications Director Luis Miranda, vapidly pondering
the following: “Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a
story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his
campaign was a mess.”
“…the Chair has been advised to not engage”, reads the reply. “So we’ll have to leave it alone.”
If it should seem odd that Democratic Party officials would actively
conspire against a primary candidate, you probably believed Party Chair
Debbie Wassman Schultz’s statement in response to the Nevada fiasco: “The Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules.”
The hypocrisy of this denial is apparent to anyone studious enough to wade through the 20,000 leaked emails.
Most of them come in the form of replies to news articles—with long
discussions about press and public relations dominating the sea of RE:s
and FW:s. It is in those media discussions that the bias against
Sanders, and toward Clinton, is most apparent.
“If Bridgette wants it, well the (sic) gosh darnit #ImWithHer”, writes Pablo
Manriquez, Broadcast Media Director, in response to a Hillary Clinton
press release. “Should we just parrot Hillary’s message? My gut says we
should.”
“In this, of all emails,” writes Luis Miranda, in response to a Clinton campaign donation email, “did they really need to use ‘steel ourselves’?!”
Promoting candidates is one of the committee’s functions. But
favoring one candidate over another, in the midst of a heated primary
race, is against the rules—if you believe Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Had the committee promoted Sanders and Clinton equally, there would be
no damning evidence that party officials broke their vow of neutrality.
But that simply isn’t the case.
“He isn’t going to be president.” Schultz wrote in May.
“It might may (sic) no difference,” writes CFO Brad Marshall, in an email titled No shit,
“but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he
believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I
think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference
with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference
between a Jew and an atheist.”
A reply from CEO Amy Dacey read simply: “AMEN.”
Marshall has since reached out to The Intercept,
denying the email was about Sanders, and insinuating it was about
a surrogate. Contributor Sam Biddle notes that Sanders was the only
Jewish candidate running. Marshall has thus far not responded to
inquiries about who the elusive surrogate might be—but targeting any
person affiliated with a Democratic Party candidate for president on the
basis of their religion, or lack thereof, is yet another example of the
DNC’s moral vacuity and profound lack of professionalism. Is this or is
this not a political party which abhors prejudice and discrimination?
On the subject of ethics, chief investigative reporter at Politico Kenneth P. Vogel apparently sent Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach a draft of his story, Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties, ahead of time—before sending it to his editors. Paustenbach explains why:
Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it
goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it. Let me know if you see
anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.
An email dated May 20th, 2016, provides more evidence
of party officials working directly with journalists to plant subtle
anti-Sanders narratives. “Phil Elliott is doing a lengthy cover story
for next week’s issue of TIME on the Sanders phenomenon, which he needs
to finish by mid-day Tuesday”, writes Paustenbach again. “He
wants to interview the Chair in person or over the phone before then.
Phil would need at least part of the interview to be on-the-record and
the rest can be on background. As he said, we’d be mad if they did a
story on the soul/direction of the party and decided not to talk to her.
The piece will tee up nicely the California primary.”
Listing the proposed key points of Elliott’s article, Paustenbach notes:
“The culmination of this election is about what
the soul of the Democratic Party looks like. Deliberate, policy driven
and results-oriented or more liberal, pie-in-the-sky?”
“The Confessore story on Bernie’s impact on the
Party beyond his electoral prospects is out. Overall I think it’s as
good as we could hope for. We were able to keep him from including more
on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation
he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on
that. Longabaugh also strikes a somewhat conciliatory tone described
here as saying : he believed the campaign would ultimately be well
represented on all the committees as more members are named.”
As criticism against the DNC mounted, party officials reacted defensively. Below is the full text of Paustenbach’s email to Luis Miranda, mentioned at the outset:
From:markpaustenbach@gmail.com
To: mirandal@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-21 22:23
Subject: Bernie narrative
Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story,
which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign
was a mess. Specifically, DWS had to call Bernie directly in order to
get the campaign to do things because they’d either ignored or forgotten
to something critical.
She had to call Bernie after the data breach to make his
staff to respond to our concerns. Even then they didn’t get back to us,
which is why we had to shut off their access in order to get them to
finally let us know exactly how they snooped around HFA’s data. Same was
true with the standing committee appointments. They never got back to
us with their names (HFA and even O’Malley got there’s in six weeks
earlier) for the committees.
So, again, the chair had to call Bernie personally for his
staff to finally get us critical information. So, they gave us an awful
list just a few days before we had to make the announcements. It’s not a
DNC conspiracy, it’s because they never had their act together.
It is well within Schulz’s ethical dictum for party officials to
complain about the Sanders campaign or dismiss criticism (though the
former action lends itself to the terribly awkward notion that the
Democratic Party isn’t as enlightened as it pretends to be). But the
repeated pontification over ways to damage the Sanders campaign proves
the committee was unable to separate reactionary criticism from
appallingly blatant insider favoritism.
One has to respect Luis Miranda for shutting Paustenbach down—or
at least respect whomever advised Schultz to disengage from the
argument and reaffirm the Party’s commitment to neutrality.
“It’s not a DNC conspiracy“, said the conspirator.
That
the Democratic National Committee is unwilling to accept criticism from
a populist movement is the Party’s greatest shame. Over the hours I
spent pouring through the emails, I encountered scant ideological
discussion, or even serious conversation about addressing what ills the
Democrats. What I found instead are reams of PR concerns. The Democratic
Party, as an institution, must appear perfect—the supposed party of the people is terrifyingly dogmatic.
“Morning Joe today was ridiculous calling it a rigged system for the first half hour”, writes Luis Miranda. Another email suggests taking cues from the Republicans:
“My suggestion is that the DNC put out a
statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true.
The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two
campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its
current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry.
Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over ‘rigged system’, the
DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying
is false and harmful the the Democratic party.”
Harmful to the Democratic Party. And here I was thinking rhetorical
criticism was an inalienable facet of the Liberal values the Democratic
Party pretends to represent. The Democrats will never serve as a
megaphone for the vox populi, or as protector of minority
voices, or as a party committed to the unfettered practice of democracy,
if they continue their shameless pageantry at the expense of improving
themselves.
But one is led to the inescapable conclusion that the committee is
disinterested in their own purported ideology. Their job is to get
Democrats elected—but under the leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schulz,
they’ve evidently taken it upon themselves to decide which ponies to
trot in front of the roaring crowd, and which ones would be more useful
as glue.
Highlights From The DNC Leak
From:MARSHALL@dnc.org
To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get
someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on
saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This
could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist
peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, PoughT@dnc.org, HoughtonK@dnc.org, hrtsleeve@gmail.com, DaceyA@dnc.org, ReynoldsL@dnc.org more Date: 2016-04-25 12:11
The Confessore story on Bernie’s impact on the Party beyond
his electoral prospects is out. Overall I think it’s as good as we could
hope for. We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it
has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with
Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that.
Longabaugh also strikes a somewhat conciliatory tone described here as
saying : he believed the campaign would ultimately be well represented
on all the committees as more members are named
From: Paustenbach, Mark Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:56 AM To: Miranda, Luis
From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: hrtsleeve@gmail.com, PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 23:13 Subject:
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ——– Original message ——– From: hrtsleeve@gmail.com Date: 05/18/2016 20:38 (GMT-05:00)
To: “Paustenbach, Mark” <PaustenbachM@dnc.org> Cc: “Miranda, Luis” <MirandaL@dnc.org> Subject: Re: NY Times – Bernie Sanders’s Defiance Strains Ties With Top Democrats
Btw, Nancy Cordes had the most
puzzled look on her face when she asked me to respond to Weaver saying I
had been throwing shade at Sanders. I said, well, my response to that
is #SMH. She paused for a second and looked very confused. DWS
From:hrtsleeve@gmail.com To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, BanfillR@dnc.org, PoughT@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-19 16:27
This is really a problem, guys. We cannot allow this
narrative to continue. Where is the balance? We have plenty of people
that could push back. We must get a pushback story out there.
From:hrtsleeve@gmail.com To: PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 22:24
Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his
editors as long as I didn’t share it. Let me know if you see anything
that’s missing and I’ll push back.
From:hrtsleeve@gmail.com To: MirandaL@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-18 09:22
Are you serious?? Unbelievable. What did they say? Yes,
bigger push. Just send Sunshine State whatever it is we come up with as
an op ed. DWS >
On May 18, 2016, at 7:11 AM, Miranda, Luis <MirandaL@dnc.org>
wrote: > > We’ll reach out but it’s worth a series of op eds so
we’ll make a bigger push. Morning Joe today was ridiculous calling it a
rigged system for the first half hour >
From:MElias@perkinscoie.com To: MirandaL@dnc.org, DaceyA@dnc.org, MARSHALL@dnc.org, ReynoldsL@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-03 19:06
My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that
the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN
notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem.
Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past
practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back
directly on Trump over “rigged system”, the DNC should push back
DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful
the the Democratic party.
From:DaceyA@dnc.org To: melias@perkinscoie.com, MirandaL@dnc.org, MARSHALL@dnc.org, ReynoldsL@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-03 19:07 Subject: Re: Brad – is the building aware of this?
I do think there is too much of this narrative out there- I
also worry since they are emailing t o their list (which has overlap
with ours!) Would be good to push back… Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive
Officer
From:HelmstetterT@dnc.org To: BrinsterJ@dnc.org, Comm_D@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-02 13:13
Subject: RE: FLAG: Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
Fyi – Bernie’s rapid response director is tweeting out the
section of us giving talking points to state parties
https://twitter.com/cascamike/status/727128917354631168
From:MirandaL@dnc.org To: hrtsleeve@gmail.com, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, BanfillR@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-19 15:07
Yes, and Hilary sent part of that.
Mika is willing to do a call with you, so we need to know if you want to
make that happen too. We figure it can’t get worse, so worth having a
call.
From: hrtsleeve@gmail.com<mailto:hrtsleeve@gmail.com> [mailto:hrtsleeve@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 1:05 PM To: Miranda, Luis; Paustenbach, Mark; Banfill, Ryan
Subject: MSNBC story
This is a good story. Did we get them the info near the bottom?
From: Reif, Eric Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 11:58 AM To: EMail-Vetting_D; Walker, Eric
Hi all — Below are three emails we’re planning to send from
Hillary Clinton on Monday. HFA and she have already signed off on these,
but let me know if you have any flags.
From:DavisM@dnc.org To: ManriquezP@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-17 23:57
Idk…hmmm! Marilyn D. Davis National Director of Community
Engagement Democratic National Convention M: 609-218-3254 Twitter:
@marilynddavis
Facebook.com/marilynddavis<http://facebook.com/marilynddavis> Sent
from my iPhone, please excuse any typos
On May 17, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Manriquez, Pablo <ManriquezP@dnc.org<mailto:ManriquezP@dnc.org>> wrote:
If Bridgette wants it, well the gosh darnit #ImWithHer. Should we just parrot Hillary’s message? My gut says we should.
From:PaustenbachM@dnc.org To: MirandaL@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-20 22:58
After they get nervous for our strong stand against Bernie
violence, Brooklyn suddenly grows a backbone. Sad! Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic
National Committee 202.863.8148 paustenbachm@dnc.org<mailto:paustenbachm@dnc.org>
On May 20, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Miranda, Luis <MirandaL@dnc.org<mailto:MirandaL@dnc.org>>
wrote: In this, of all emails, did they really need to use “steel
ourselves”?! Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE
smartphone
As previously noted, the Wikileaks email dump is large, containing about 20,000 messages. You can search the database yourself here.
Ted Nugent’s 20 Reasons to Vote for Trump Go Viral… Liberals Horrified
Conservative favorite Ted Nugent is known for his straightforward approach.
It should come as no surprise, then, that a recent Facebook post by
the outspoken guitarist explaining reasons to vote for GOP
front-runner Donald Trump would send liberals into full panic mode.
While Nugent did not endorse any candidate, he said his list in favor of voting for “The Donald” was too special not to share.
The Nuge nailed it. The reason these people and organizations are
against Trump is because he threatens them and their left-wing agenda. A
Trump presidency would certainly shake up the infrastructure many on
this list have either established or fought to maintain under President
Barack Obama and his administration.
The same legal watchdog group that exposed the ‘Smoking gun’ Benghazi email – which was compounded by our discovery at Shoebat.com, that one of the names on the distribution list is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood – has zeroed in on another conflict of interest with Rogers.
In fact, when it comes to Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, there is an 
The degree to which either Mr. or Mrs. Rogers knew about this 
Electoral cheating has probably existed since the second election ever held, but cheating by American Democrats has now reached levels never seen before in a major democracy.DWS
